There seems to be quite a few YouTube videos of charging phones in microwaves. Are these videos being removed from YouTube too? And I've heard stories that some people indeed believed that and broke their phones. Can YouTube be held responsible for damages?
YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
741–750 of 923 posts
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#742Earlier quoted context omitted.
They too switched to misinformation, direct control of media, supression of independent media, etc. This kind of transparent content removal is not what dictatorships do.
It depends on how much control they have. You'll find no pro-free-market content on Kwangmyong.
You'll instead find the artisanal hand-crafted propaganda, and you won't find constructive criticism. Usually you'll find massive tomes of apologetics full of self-pity and victimization, and of course absolute hope that Dear Leader will still solve this even if the world is against him.
Is there some kind of "list of prohibited books" in NK (like the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in the 16th century)? I guess not, because anything that's not allowed is by default prohibited?
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#743Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, rascist content tends to denigrate and harm people, it causes people to get killed and injured, while pro-LGBT content tends to call for love and allow people to love who they want. I can see the difference, can you? You make it sound like some slippery slope fallacy, but it's not the same speech. Calling for hate is wrong and should be shuttered in the darkness.
Really, so giving young children hormones to transition to the other gender doesnt harm anybody? You simply have no idea what the argument of the other side even is. You live in an airtight bubble.
> so giving young children hormones to transition to the other gender doesnt harm anybody?
Correct.
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#744Earlier quoted context omitted.
A business decision to avoid risk of costly litigation is not at all the same as actual harm. If you have any information on actual harm, please share it. Otherwise, please leave your FUD at the door.
So you don't believe that people ought to have the right to sue when injured? Also, calling stuff "FUD" is a classic strategy to escape responsibility. For example, the tobacco industry claimed that lung cancer risk was FUD for decades. Other examples include groundwater pollution, asbestos, and lead paint. Not to mention human overpopulation. Which is arguably the root cause of the COVID-19 pandemic. Along with HIV…
The irony with your comment is that it's the tobacco industry which started (and is still significantly funding) the whole anti science/evidence campaigns. In fact the whole antivax movement is part of a big FUD campaign. So historically these campaigns have almost always come from a certain direction to discredit established scientific evidence. The current antilockdown campaigns come from the same corner/often the same people so yes people are sceptical about them, I'm sorry that you got banned for your "well reasoned" post.
Maybe the solution is a law that if someone posts/airs clearly wrong facts. Or if someone's theories/facts... Get later disproven they need to post/air a correction at the same time at least as long (maybe better twice as long) and give it as much prominence. Maybe then outlets would be more careful about posting obvious untruths.
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#745Earlier quoted context omitted.
This slope isn't nearly as slippery as you're saying. If YouTube began issuing a million times more bans, it might approach the quality of an average newspaper in terms of accuracy. Would we be living in a dystopia at that point? No, we'd be living just like we did in the year 2000, when YouTube wasn't around but newspapers were. Just like a nutjob in 2000, Icke still has print, radio, TV, going outside with a megaph…
I'm not making a slippery-slope argument or freaking out over anything. Just noting the metric you are using will always prefer a more authoritarian response. I.e., did the policy work to silence every example I can find for any conspiracy theory that might survive to gain attention? Defenders of free speech obviously want us to take the bad with the good. As for the internet, I think of it as technology that brings…
> I'm not making a slippery-slope argument
> Perhaps you'd prefer a quote like: the best response to bad speech is an authoritarian censor with unlimited powers to silence and imprison people?
This is literally the slippery slope argument.
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#746To be honest there's a lot of talk about freedom of speech here, and the dynamic of freedom of speech vs private corporations right to determine what they allow on their site. Personally I think that this issue is not actually as important as people think, and this problem is just one of several that emerges from a different problem. Our real problem is a lack of competition. There are a tiny number of social media sites that exist at scale: There's Youtube, there's Facebook, and then Twitter.
If we had 15 social media platforms, it really wouldn't be much of a problem for them to make decisions about who they wanted on their platform - whether that be through Terms of Service or crappy DMCA implementations. And that's not even taking into consideration the fact that they're all run by the same handful of people who bump into each other at the local Whole Foods.
The problem isn't censorship, it's the fact that we've got Standard Oil and no one sees it as a problem.
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#747I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech. That is, I am opposed to the argument that private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, and therefore it's okay for them to suppress content. I agree that they're not bound by the first amendment (I don't claim to understand the nuances of the "platform" laws so I won't address that), b…
> Booting people off of platforms merely reinforces their pre-existing beliefs, and further radicalizes them.
This is just not true. Or rather, it may be true, but it is entirely irrelevant.
We as a society don't care who radicalised David Icke is. It just doesn't matter. What matters is that letting him spread his misinformation causes harm and death. Actual people die because of this. And that can be stopped by denying him a platform. If it makes him more angry, that is absolutely irrelevant.
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#748I'm not going to shed a tear for David Icke, but this quote is very concerning: > YouTube has clear policies prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of Covid-19 as described by the WHO [World Health Organization] and the NHS [the U.K's healthcare system] [emphasis added] The WHO at least has been flat out wrong several times during this pandemic, such as telling people not to wear masks.…
How do you know they are wrong about masks? In Sweden the scientific consensus is still that masks for the broad public are unnecessary.
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#749Just some food for thought. If youtube was around in the past and doing this stuff they could have deleted videos in support of the following: (these all started as fringe beliefs(1)) Interracial marriage Gay marriage Smoking causes lung cancer (1) interesting topical read and it has sources for these at the end https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/american-brain.html
Those are ideological beliefs. Yes, at one time they were very widely and strongly held. But they were never remotely comparible to spreading factually incorrect information about something biological. A simple demonstration to this: even the reverse of these (e.g. "I believe gay marriage is morally wrong") can't reasonably be argued against with "that is factually incorrect". It's fair to believe that private compan…
You seem to imply that it's okay for YouTube to censor content as long as the content is 'factually incorrect'. What is your definition of 'factually' incorrect content? More importantly, how do you prevent YouTube from coming up with their own definition of factual correctness and start banning content at will.
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#750Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that in some cases we do not know what is true is valid. The idea that therefore we can never determine what is true and therefore must, in the name of "free speech" support and help anyone say anything is not. David Icke is not spreading information. He's spreading nonsense about lizard people. That's objectively true.
I personally agree that what David Icke is spreading is a bunch of nonsense. But I'm against suppressing him because otherwise I can't maintain a logically consistent belief system. That is to say, as soon as we can ban the lizard guy, we can also ban a lot more viewpoints that are not quite as controversial / outright crazy but straddle the line. And just to head this off, the dimension of palatability to advertiser…
But your belief is already logically inconsistent unless you are saying we should allow porn, animal cruelty, or ISIS propaganda on YouTube (the last one is very clearly suppression of a political opinion, and abhorrent one, but nonetheless).
This is the issue, if you are saying YouTube should allow all content then you need to be consistent and allow all content. If not you really just disagree on what content should be censored, but then you can't make this out to be a censorship vs free speech debate, because you agree on censorship, just not on what gets censored.